{"id":507794,"date":"2026-05-29T00:18:31","date_gmt":"2026-05-29T00:18:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/507794\/"},"modified":"2026-05-29T00:18:31","modified_gmt":"2026-05-29T00:18:31","slug":"boosting-nad-tru-niagen-and-us-advertising-board-clash-over-supplement-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/507794\/","title":{"rendered":"Boosting NAD+: Tru Niagen and US advertising board clash over supplement claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

Niagen Bioscience says it rejects the logic behind a recommendation by the US National Advertising Review Board (NARB) to remove or significantly modify advertising claims for its flagship nicotinamide riboside (NR) supplement, Tru Niagen.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Although the company has agreed to comply with the board\u2019s recommendation, it argues that the standards are restrictive and could discourage companies from communicating scientific research.<\/p>\n

Speaking to\u00a0Nutrition Insight<\/strong>, the company defends its clinical research portfolio, as a complaint from competitor Reus Research led to the National Advertising Division \u2014 an advertising watchdog of the US industry \u2014 reassessing whether scientific evidence that Tru Niagen boosts cellular NAD+ levels is enough to claim a product delivers real-world health and longevity benefits.<\/p>\n

\"arrow\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cThe decision signals that marketers must be careful not to overstate what the science proves in terms of consumer experience,\u201d Phyllis Marcus, VP of the National Advertising Division, tells us.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ruling also highlights that testimonials, imagery, and lifestyle messaging can materially shape the claim conveyed, especially in advertising aimed at older consumers seeking healthy aging benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n

Carlos Lopez, SVP and general counsel at Niagen Bioscience, says that the company is \u201cdeeply disappointed\u201d with the decision, which it believes applies an \u201coverly restrictive standard.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is a self-regulatory proceeding, and the NARB is not an official governmental regulatory body,\u201d he says. \u201cThis matter relates to advertising claims and does not affect product availability or our ability to sell Tru Niagen.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dispute over clinically proven claims<\/strong><\/p>\n

NARB reviewed an earlier decision by the National Advertising Division, which evaluated the claim<\/a> \u201cclinically proven to significantly increase NAD+ levels, and help maintain them with daily use,\u201d and a separate claim that NAD+ levels rise within hours and show significant increases within two weeks of supplementation.<\/p>\n

Although studies show that NR can increase NAD+ levels, the division concluded that differences in study design, populations, duration, endpoints, and conditions of use limited the extent to which the evidence supported the broad \u201cclinically proven\u201d claim.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The dispute centers on whether clinical evidence showing increases in NAD+ levels can substantiate broader health benefit advertising claims (Image credit: Niagen Bioscience).<\/p>\n

Moreover, the division said it did not find reasonably conveyed substantiated functional benefits in cardiovascular, cognitive, immune, metabolic, exercise, anti-aging, or cellular repair-related outcomes.<\/p>\n

Agreeing with the division\u2019s conclusion, the NARB urged Niagen Bioscience to discontinue clinically proven health-benefit claims related to healthy aging, remove consumer testimonials or lifestyle imagery implying immediate physical vitality, and modify messaging regarding heart, brain, muscle, and immune health where the context implies perceptible improvements.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Niagen Bioscience\u2019s response<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, Lopez counters that the panel\u2019s recommendation is inconsistent with dietary supplement law and scientific practice. He asserts that the panel \u201cincorrectly recategorized qualified cellular and structure and function statements as broader implied claims\u201d and evaluated studies individually rather than considering the totality of evidence.<\/p>\n

\u201cMore than ten human clinical studies have consistently demonstrated Niagen\u2019s ability to significantly increase NAD+ levels, and our products remain backed by one of the most extensive clinical research portfolios in the NAD+ category,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n

He highlights that Niagen is supported by more than 45 peer-reviewed human clinical studies, 500 published scientific studies, and 300 research collaborations.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the NARB argues that evidence from this body of research does not support broader health benefit claims.<\/p>\n

While structure\/function claims are generally permitted under the US Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, the NARB and National Advertising Division say that a product\u2019s legal classification does not matter if the marketing still misleads consumers.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, they say that advertisers cannot assume a cellular change, such as boosting NAD+, automatically results in real-world health benefits. The marketing can only reflect what the company\u2019s clinical trials actually measured and proved.<\/p>\n

Boundaries of commercial claims<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lopez underscores that the National Advertising Division considered evidence insufficient from 10 double-blind, placebo-controlled human trials showing that Niagen elevates NAD+ levels.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe National Advertising Division and the NARB either misunderstood the science at issue in this case, or they inappropriately disregarded the science in order to use the case as a platform to make new policy about advertising dietary supplements that diverges from the actual law and the way regulators have historically applied the law,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n

Niagen says it supports clearer regulatory guidance to ensure \u201cconsistent and accurate messaging across the category.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lopez directly addresses the potential that consumers may interpret NAD+ claims as anti-aging promises. \u201cWe appreciate concerns about consumer interpretation of NAD+ claims. Our messaging is designed to be truthful and not to over-promise. We make clear that Tru Niagen supports healthy aging by increasing NAD+ levels, based on rigorous scientific research.\u201d<\/p>\n

He also warns the ruling could discourage companies from communicating scientific research and create greater regulatory uncertainty in the supplement industry.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile we respectfully disagree with the recommendations, we will comply,\u201d he adds. \u201cWe remain firmly committed to scientific rigor, regulatory compliance, transparency, and continued investment in clinical research supporting healthy aging and NAD+ science.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bridging the claims and outcomes gap<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lopez does not believe current US regulations clearly define the boundary between structure or function claims and perceived health outcomes.<\/p>\n

He argues that Tru Niagen\u2019s claims such as \u201csupports cellular energy,\u201d \u201csupports heart health,\u201d and \u201cmaintains efficient metabolism within cells\u201d are permissible structure\/function claims provided that they are substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence of NR\u2019s role in the body.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe regulatory framework has been clear for more than thirty years. It is the National Advertising Board\u2019s inappropriate attempt to create extra-legal substantiation requirements that is the problem.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"ElderlyThe National Advertising Division considered evidence insufficient from 10 double-blind, placebo-controlled human trials showing that Niagen elevates NAD+ levels.He also criticizes the panel for concluding that mechanistic evidence alone cannot support claims implying measurable health improvements.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn 1994, Congress created the category of dietary supplements to allow consumers access to products that support the body\u2019s healthy functioning and to allow companies to communicate truthful information about how their products do just that,\u201d Lopez says.<\/p>\n

Cautionary advice for marketers<\/strong><\/p>\n

Marcus at the National Advertising Division tells Nutrition Insight\u00a0<\/strong>that the decision does not introduce a new standard but reinforces existing expectations around health claims.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is well settled both at the National Advertising Division and the Federal Trade Commission that health claims are important to consumers and generally must be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n

She adds that advertisers using terms such as \u201cclinically proven\u201d or \u201cresearch shows\u201d should expect close scrutiny of both study quality and advertising context.<\/p>\n

The National Advertising Division concluded that when supplement advertising conveys real-world health benefits, marketers are expected to have competent and reliable scientific evidence \u2014 typically randomized controlled human clinical trials.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe concluded that in many instances Niagen\u2019s evidence did not constitute competent and reliable scientific evidence sufficient to support the health claims at issue,\u201d Marcus says.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Niagen Bioscience says it rejects the logic behind a recommendation by the US National Advertising Review Board (NARB)…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":507795,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[277],"tags":[18,135,19,17,25980,202492,111294,508,111296],"class_list":["post-507794","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-nutrition","tag-eire","tag-health","tag-ie","tag-ireland","tag-nad","tag-niagen-bioscience","tag-nicotinamide-riboside","tag-nutrition","tag-tru-niagen"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@ie\/116654998448162489","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/507794","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=507794"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/507794\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/507795"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=507794"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=507794"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=507794"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}